EVENTS

Hitchens’ last eloquent gasp

I just ordered Hitchens’ Mortality; it’ll be out next week. I’m very much looking forward to it in a grim sort of way. You can read the last chapter right now, and incoherent and scattered as those terminal jottings are, it’s still marvelously well-written. My favorite quote so far?

If I convert it’s because it’s better that a believer dies than that an atheist does.

The only respectable thing about Hitchens was his atheism. Here’s what I wrote about him a few years ago:

“Christopher Hitchens, like Lyndon Larouche, used to present himself as a leftist. For many years he had a column in The Nation in which he vied with Alexander Cockburn for the “Most Acerbic” award (a magnificent scarlet inkwell filled with sulphuric acid). Things started to get a little weird in the 1990s when he developed an obsessive hatred of the Clintons. His reasons were partly respectable (triangulating, Dick-Morris-employing betrayers of the revolutionary vanguard) and partly insane (Bill’s serial sex crimes made Ted Bundy look like a boy scout; Whitewater [in which they were guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!) was the financial scandal of the century; Hillary not only murdered Vincent Foster, but conspired with her lesbian lover to seduce, rob and kill dozens of wealthy young fops whose mutilated bodies turned up in seedy alleys all over the DC metro area . .. well, maybe I made up that last one but it’s in the spirit of the thing.) Once he could no longer demonstrate his superiority to the bleating herd of liberal sheep by cheering on Ken Starr, the Iraq war became his next opportunity. His bellicose rantings were enough to drive Dick Cheney to the Quaker meetinghouse. He finally resigned from The Nation, claiming that the refusal of the magazine’s other writers and editors to fall to their knees in grateful acknowledgment of his intellectual and moral superiority on the question of war was proof of their bigotry and hatefulness. He wrote a final hissy fit essay in which he burned every bridge from London to Lompoc.

As some people have noticed, the Iraq war has not turned out the way it was supposed to. Some of the war’s portside chickenhawk supporters have since issued mealy mouthed retractions; others have concentrated on giving Chimpoleon and his pals unsolicited advice about how to do it better. Hitchens, however, has devoted himself to escalatingly vicious and absurd attacks on the war’s opponents. It’s not unusual for polemicists to turn against their own comrades but Hitchens’s case is particularly disgusting and bizarre. I think that chronic alcoholism destroyed brain cells in his cerebral cortex that normally inhibit irrational emotional responses in the limbic system. Something ticked him off around 1994, and the anger just fed into a positive feedback loop that slowly and steadily grows more intense. Eventually, he’ll lose one too many neurons and lapse into a vegetative state.”

Pastor Carl Gallups on the PPSimmons YouTube channel once claimed that God game Hitchens throat cancer to silence him for his blasphemy. Fat lot of good it did: he kept right on blaspheming up to the end, and his words will be spreading for some time to come thanks to his writing. You’d think an all-knowing, all-powerful being would be able to come up with something more effective.

With all due respect (read “fuck you”) PZ, that is exactly the sort of supremecist jingoistic “goddamn aren’t we nonbelievers awesome? We eat rationality and shit science” bullshit that turned me off from Just Atheism and skepticism. Not looking good for A+

Sounds like you also need a checkup. Keep in mind you’re talking about a satirist who made a living going around the media purposefully saying insensitive things to stir up controversy. You’d have to be out of touch to take that statement at face value.

And Hitchens is not at all my idol. His cardboard cutout is very small next to my shrine to Lord Dawkins.

I usually enjoy Hitchen’s satire, but this just comes off as crass to me. If I had friend’s over for dinner and one jokingly said. “Hey, better a Jew die than a Christian, am I right?” I would toss them out if they didn’t apologise. It’s an awful thing to say.

I owe dawkins and all NOTHING. I never requested they speak on my behalf and while what some have done is great it doesn’t matter. If were not going to givd weighed critique to people when they’re wrong because of how well they promote rationality we are hypocritical idiots.

This is why I hate most Atheist punks now, you fucking idiots have replaced one authority for another. You have taken the idea of critical thought and rationality, thrown out the actual tool set and built a shrine around the lables. You don’t thin for your selves or care about reality and you attack people who do and try to shame them because they’re making a hero look bad. You are engaging in the same mentality you criticize catholics for when they defend mother church and have the oblivious audacity to feel superior to them! You know about bias and fallacies and all that but won’t apply it consistantly because deeerp biased and fallacious. Hypocrits, supremecists, liars, self deluded fools.

Cervantes: “The only respectable thing about Hitchens was his atheism.”

Nonsense. His freedom of speech lecture in Canada is better than any of his atheism lectures in my opinion. Hitchens championed many good political causes throughout his life (he didn’t hate Kissinger because of Kissinger’s bad dress sense) and some bad ones. He was sometimes misogynistic and mean spirited. Usually not.

There would have been plenty of reasons both to despise and admire him even if he’d been a devout Catholic.

I think the statement has a grain of truth. A dying Christian takes comfort in “knowing” that he is moving on to eternal life in heaven. He’s immortal y’all! An atheist understands it’s all over, that he will not be reunited with loved ones in the afterlife and float on clouds and eat pie all day and not get fat. To me, that makes dying a little sadder for us (although it makes living all the more precious).

The first part of the sentence is kind of important and is being ignored: “If I convert it’s because…” he’s joking about is own death while simultaneously discounting a death-bed conversion as legitimate. There’s only one death being discussed here, and it is his own.

I’ve heard and read (often with disgust) many of the things that Hitchens has said and written, but I would be genuinely shocked if the last clause of that sentence were ever articulated independently.

The bottom line (for me at least), is that Christopher Hitchens was simultaneously a brilliant and passionate rhetorician who helped rationality and humanism advance to the public sphere, and an extraordinarily stubborn warmonger who supported the deaths of millions. To me, this made him utterly fascinating: a mind that could at once be beautiful and repulsive.

In other words, he was a human being.

Both the Hitchens haters and the Hitchens worshippers annoy the fuck out of me. To only look at one side of the man is to do his memory a great disservice: to understand who he was, you need to examine his best and worst qualities. And you need to understand someone before you judge them. Hitchens was unique in having embodied the best of the best and the worst of the worst, the brightest and darkest aspects of humanity. Can’t we all just agree on that?

@Ing (33)

I owe dawkins and all NOTHING. I never requested they speak on my behalf and while what some have done is great it doesn’t matter.

That’s bullshit and you know it. What do you owe them? The fact that you are part of an atheist community. You post all the time over here at Pharyngula, which means that you are part of the online atheism community. A community that, in all likelihood, wouldn’t exist without Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and, yes, PZ Myers. They were the ones who pushed atheism into the public sphere in the wake of 9/11, they are responsible for energizing young skeptics across the world to take action against extremism and irrationality. After 9/11, America could have easily rallied around Christian fundamentalism, but instead passionate atheists helped drive the public thought toward rationalism. The result was the Second Wave of Atheism, the explosion of freethought into the youth culture and onto the internet. That’s what you have to thank them for.

I disagreed with the Hitch about a lot of things, especially politics and feminism. I agreed with him about a lot of things, especially atheism and literature. I always enjoyed his writing style, regardless if I disagreed or agreed. I appreciate some good gallows humor and that is some damn good gallows humor.

That’s bullshit and you know it. What do you owe them? The fact that you are part of an atheist community. You post all the time over here at Pharyngula, which means that you are part of the online atheism community.

Wow. Take note everyone, I literally am being forced into the community! the A+ critics were right.

I owe Hitch NOTHING. My view of the community is that it is garbage for the reasons I stated above. if I’m supposed to respect him for helping bring another collective of self deluded hypocritical supremacist yutzes in to existence; bah I say. Bah.

A rabbi is on his deathbed, and a friend asks him if he has any last requests. The Rabbi asks his friend to find him a Catholic priest, so that he might convert. Confused, his friend asks, “Rabbi, why? You have been a great teacher and leader of your followers, and you have led a good and honorable Jewish life. Why would you want to become a Catholic now, before you die?”
He says, “Eh, better one of them than one of us.”

(Note: This joke is also seen with an Irish Catholic replacing the Rabbi, and a Protestant minister replacing the Catholic priest.)

Wow. Take note everyone, I literally am being forced into the community! the A+ critics were right.

I believe that Pharyngula is a community, an online community for atheists. I might be wrong, but I believe that PZ and most of the other commenters here would agree. If you don’t like being part of this community, if you think it is full of hypocritical, self-deluded liars and you want nothing to do with it, then what the hell are you posting here all the time for?

I owe Hitch NOTHING. My view of the community is that it is garbage for the reasons I stated above. if I’m supposed to respect him for helping bring another collective of self deluded hypocritical supremacist yutzes in to existence; bah I say. Bah.

If you are seriously generalizing all of the people that the prominent atheist authors and bloggers have helped bring into atheism as “hypocritical supremacist yutzes”, then fuck off, Ing.

I believe that Pharyngula is a community, an online community for atheists. I might be wrong, but I believe that PZ and most of the other commenters here would agree. If you don’t like being part of this community, if you think it is full of hypocritical, self-deluded liars and you want nothing to do with it, then what the hell are you posting here all the time for?

a) Pretty sure there’s at least one pagan that would feel excluded by you

Considering Hitchens was the one doing the dying in the quote, and it was in notes jotted down for himself, I’m not going to deny a person with cancer whatever moments of amusement they may find or vilify the person for making them. I’m not taking the words at the face value they may have on a printed page without any context. I’m looking at the words of someone who was angry and likely afraid, because dying, especially early, sucks donkey bollocks. If I found myself in the same situation I would probably even quote the same words at that time. Thinking that this was an actual sentiment, rather than just a moment of dark humour, doesn’t seem to mesh with the writing style and moments of what I thought were mostly respectful debate through the years.

I owe dawkins and all NOTHING. I never requested they speak on my behalf and while what some have done is great it doesn’t matter. If were not going to givd weighed critique to people when they’re wrong because of how well they promote rationality we are hypocritical idiots.

This is why I hate most Atheist punks now … Hypocrits, supremecists, liars, self deluded fools.

Can I get an “…and get offa my lawn!” with that, Ing?

In all seriousness, yes, there are many more people willing to call themselves atheists with much less intellectual rigor. A major reason for that is that it’s a lot easier, socially speaking, to self-identify as an atheist, than it has been in the past. But… isn’t that the point?
More people identifying as atheists means more people you don’t like or approve of identifying as atheists. There really isn’t any way around that.

As far as not owing the man anything – you have no idea if that’s true, because you don’t know how much of your freedom to express a godless opinion is due to his efforts. It might not be a large amount, but I suspect it’s non-zero. But of course, I don’t know either.

This odd insistance that I owe Hitch respect not to criticize because I may owe him for stuff he did without my request or even knowledge of me is absurd…and frankly very Christian. Has anyone thought thazt Jesus MAY have paid for your sins?

As far as not owing the man anything – you have no idea if that’s true, because you don’t know how much of your freedom to express a godless opinion is due to his efforts. It might not be a large amount, but I suspect it’s non-zero. But of course, I don’t know either. – Anri

I don’t know whether that’s true of Ing, but it’s certainly not true of me, nor of most British, nor I imagine most west European atheists. The last time I recall this freedom being questioned was the first time I came out as an atheist outside my immediate family – at school, in a religious education lesson, when I was 12 – that would be 1966 or 1967.

I’m no great fan of Hitchens, whose misogyny and support for the Iraq invasion were vile, but I can’t see the problem with his bit of gallows humour – which as others have noted, is by no means original with him.

Because the idea that atheists are better than theists is already too endemic. I don’t find the sentiment funny, just rather hateful and mean spirited. If Hitch wants to leave that as a legacy well just leave it at that.

Because the idea that atheists are better than theists is already too endemic.

Rather insidious too, as recent events have demonstrated.

In even the most charitable interpretation, such an attitude breeds complacency.

If the theists are misogynist, bigoted, and privileged, then atheist, obviously, must not be, because atheists are better. And being better, they don’t have any need for introspection in regards to these issues, no need to improve themselves, because, after all, they are already better.

I don’t quite understand the perspective Ing and similar are bringing to this discussion. The “wave” of prominent atheists that includes Hitchens helped significantly raise the visibility of atheism and atheists. I’m not sure that “popularizing” it would be exactly the right word, because at least here in the U.S. atheism still isn’t popular by the general public’s measure, but popularizing relative to how it was perceived before.

In that way, current atheists or any political persuasion benefit indirectly from the small culture shifts that were (are) influenced by those individuals who in a very public way fought for atheism.

I think Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be a loose analogy (although, to clear this objection out in advance, I am not saying Hitchens is the Rev. King of atheism). African American leaders who are conservative politically wouldn’t share King’s political views, and in fact would disagree with his ideology in numerous and significant ways. But that doesn’t stop the likes of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice from positively acknowledging the influence King had on race in America.

I don’t see PZ or anyone demanding fealty to Hitchens or an endorsement of everything he spoke, did, or wrote, but I don’t think it’s inappropriate to posthumously respect the positive things he did for the atheist community at large and from which in some small part all of us benefit from because of his impact on the greater culture relative to atheism.

Because the idea that atheists are better than theists is already too endemic.

I agree, but that sentiment is only apparent in the most literal interpretation of the quote. To convert to a position you have been fighting against as your life’s work and then die for the purpose of decreasing the population holding that position is futile. The statement as a whole is ridiculous, and given Hitchen’s gift for word-play, can only be interpreted as intentionally so.

I also agree that readers of Hitchen’s could be so uncritical as to be misled into thinking that Hitchen’s is proposing that the death of a believer is unequivocally to be preferred over the death of an atheist. Such a reader is likely wrong about lots of stuff through no fault of the authors whom xe reads. I don’t deny that this is a danger, but I am not entirely sure what to do about it other than avoid saying anything sufficiently figurative to allow miscomprehension. It’s a little late to pass that message to Hitchens, though.

That’s bullshit and you know it. What do you owe them? The fact that you are part of an atheist community. You post all the time over here at Pharyngula, which means that you are part of the online atheism community. A community that, in all likelihood, wouldn’t exist without Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and, yes, PZ Myers. They were the ones who pushed atheism into the public sphere in the wake of 9/11, they are responsible for energizing young skeptics across the world to take action against extremism and irrationality. After 9/11, America could have easily rallied around Christian fundamentalism, but instead passionate atheists helped drive the public thought toward rationalism. The result was the Second Wave of Atheism, the explosion of freethought into the youth culture and onto the internet. That’s what you have to thank them for.

So Dawkins and Hitchens, whose most popular atheist works were published in late 2006 and mid 2007 respectively, are responsible for the atheist community? That’s interesting to me. Because, you see, I’ve been an atheist since at least 2001. During those early days, I was regularly perusing atheist sites, atheist internet resources, reading religious debates. Around 2006, I was one of very many atheists informing (or just plain trolling) religious people on Yahoo Answers. I was regularly hearing about the popularity of atheist blogs before the God Delusion was ever making waves, and I had my own for a year or two before I finally got around to reading it (I still haven’t bothered finishing it).

Usenet’s alt.atheism was the most popular group talking about religion in 1994 and 1995. Internet infidels was made in 1995. The Atheist Experience has been a webcast since 1997. Atheism.about.com has been around since 1998. Pharyngula joined Scienceblogs in 2005 and existed before that. Uncredible Hallq came into existence in 2005. Rational Response Squad around 2006. Daylight Atheism in Feb of 2006, Friendly Atheist at sometime in 2006 (author Sold His Soul on eBay in Feb of 2006, and published his book on it a month before Hitch’s book). The now-converted Raving Atheist was blogging since 2001, 2002 Aron Ra has been on Youtube since August 2006. Twin Youtube atheist assholes: Thunderfoot has been on youtube since the month God Delusion was published, Amazing Atheist the month after.

The fact of the matter is: The internet has been used by atheists and has popularized atheism since the internet itself became widespread. Dawkins and Hitchens haven’t created this wave: They are riding it. They have possibly added to it, sure, but we are most certainly NOT indebted to them enough that one can assert we wouldn’t have online or offline atheist communities without them. That assertion is absolute hogwash.

The statement as a whole is ridiculous, and given Hitchen’s gift for word-play, can only be interpreted as intentionally so.

And given Hitchens’ gift for saying repugnant shit, it can only be interpreted as intentionally repugnant. But you’re right: it’s ridiculous too. I’m glad that’s settled.

Now I’ll step back to this:

I agree, but that sentiment is only apparent in the most literal interpretation of the quote. To convert to a position you have been fighting against as your life’s work and then die for the purpose of decreasing the population holding that position is futile.

You don’t have to interpret it literally to think he sincerely meant atheists deserve more moral consideration than theists. He was fighting against theism as (part of) his life’s work, after all; but this is not something you’d say about people you consider your equals. And you don’t have to leave out the context of him being hounded by godbots to have a deathbed conversion, and that he wasn’t seriously going to convert. Sure, that’s implied, but that doesn’t excuse or invalidate everything else the statement is implying. Maybe he didn’t literally mean theists should die; but unless the whole thing is so “intentionally ridiculous” to be total bullshit (which isn’t a good defense), I don’t know what else to take from it except that he meant theists are inferior.

And given Hitchens’ gift for saying repugnant shit, it can only be interpreted as intentionally repugnant.

I doubt Hitchens ever said anything that he himself found to be repugnant, although I’m sure that he often found things that he said to be clever.

He was fighting against theism as (part of) his life’s work, after all; but this is not something you’d say about people you consider your equals.

I also doubt that Hitchens saw many people as his equal at all.

Maybe he didn’t literally mean theists should die;…

Being the entirety of the point that I’m making.

…but unless the whole thing is so “intentionally ridiculous” to be total bullshit (which isn’t a good defense),…

A defense of what? I’m just saying that, “If I convert it’s because it’s better that a believer dies than that an atheist does.” doesn’t mean the same thing as “It’s better that a believer dies than that an atheist does.”. Specifically, the former statement is about the improbability of a death-bed conversion, while the latter is about the value of people’s lives.

…I don’t know what else to take from it except that he meant theists are inferior.

I think you’re wrong about that. I think it means that the only reason that Hitchens would consider converting was so patently ridiculous, that one could safely put the idea of a death-bed conversion to rest.

Don’t get me wrong. I found many of Hitchen’s stances to be repugnant. Just not this particular sentence.

I think you’re wrong about that. I think it means that the only reason that Hitchens would consider converting was so patently ridiculous, that one could safely put the idea of a death-bed conversion to rest.

That doesn’t make any sense. Do you mean ridiculous or meaningless? Since we’re (rightly) assuming he had no intention of converting, the rest of the statement is arbitrary. It could be anything whatsoever, like “If I convert, it’s because chocolate ice cream is tasty.” That’s a patently ridiculous reason for converting to a religion. However, if he had said that, you wouldn’t simply assume he thought it was false that chocolate ice cream is tasty. If he had instead said something he clearly didn’t mean, like “If I convert, it’s because shit is tasty,” then you can apply your sophisticated hermeneutics to figure out he didn’t really mean that. But that’s all you’re doing: you’re assuming he meant the first part is false, then letting that carry over to the second for good reason at all.

But that’s all you’re doing: you’re assuming he meant the first part is false, then letting that carry over to the second for good reason at all.

It isn’t that difficult.

Premise: It’s better for a believer to die than an unbeliever.

Argument: If Hitchens converts, a believer dies. If not, an unbeliever dies.

Conclusion: Hitchens should convert.

Everything that Hitchens had said or written about his own death indicated that he had no plan to convert– he didn’t think he should. I’m not assuming it. This is a matter of record. Therefore, unless you can find a flaw in the argument, the premise must be false.

cr: You’re engaging in sophistry. Of course the argument is ridiculous because there is no real difference to any actual outcome whether Hitchens converts or not. It is pure wankery. That doesn’t mean that it lacks the structure that an argument takes, which was completely relevant to the point that you were making regarding the connection between the premise and the conclusion, and exactly what you thought I was assuming.

And for the record, I’m not the only person here who has recognized as much. So let’s not pretend that I alone am differing with the multitudes for whom you have elected to speak. It’s a dishonest tactic and not one thatI remember you having engaged in before.

And for the record, I’m not the only person here who has recognized as much.

I didn’t mean to imply you were alone, or that I was speaking for multitudes. I understand how you’d get that from “you’re just telling us all,” so I apologize. I’ll retract that and the keep the remainder.

Maybe with your “sophistry” remark, you meant I’m dodging the issue of the validity of the argument (if that’s the issue — hard to tell at this point). I don’t know where to begin. What Hitchens does isn’t what Hitchens should do. The fact that he didn’t convert and didn’t intend to convert, combined with making such an assertion, doesn’t magically render “it’s better that a believer dies than that an atheist does” false. It simply doesn’t work that way. That’s a general statement about what’s better. His choice of actions have no effect on it, so it doesn’t follow, meaning the argument (such as it is) is invalid. And the premises are false. It’s not an either/or, because the facts of the matter haven’t been shown to have any connection to one another in the first place.

Or it’s a joke. In that case, I know explaining the whole thing ruins it, but I wasn’t laughing to begin with.

I’ll give you that. I liked God Is Not Great. Then again, I’m pretty sure it didn’t change my mind about anything, so I’m pretty biased. It might be good, but what is it good for? What’s the point? It’s not an argument for atheism. It covers some of what’s bad about religion, but that’s easier than shooting fish in a barrel. It’s certainly well-written, and that is hard to do. But being well-written isn’t what a book is for.

So, I guess my takeaway from the Hitch fans is that Atheism + wouldn’t be necessary if only the esteemed members of Atheism * wrote more eloquently and had more rhetorical flair.

The More You Know.

Why would that be your takeaway?

It’s really not difficult to be a fan of Hitchens while being a) sad that he could sometimes be a damn neanderthal, and b) glad that a movement is being formed which should have a positive effect on the whole atheist community.